Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-12/Mithraic mysteries

Where is the dispute?
Mithraic mysteries

Who is involved?

 * User:Civilizededucation
 * User:Roger Pearse
 * User:Kalidasa 777
 * User:TomHennell)

What is the dispute?
Roger Pearse is the original "author" of this article and feels (perhaps contrary to WP:OWN) that the article in its original form represented a thorough overview of scholarly research into the topic. Subsequently Civilizededucation has made some changes to the article. Roger Pearse feels these changes are introducing internet speculation, wild long-discredited theories, and a historical bias (something to do with whether Mithraism did or did not predate Christianity) to the article.

There is also a related issue that, partly because the topic is relatively obscure (there is enough secondary coverage for notability, but not enough of it is readily accessible), some of the material in the article is (or was) supported by copies or translations of secondary sources that Roger Pearse has put on his own website. Civilizededucation thinks these should be removed.

Kalidasa 777 agrees with Civilizededucation.

The editors are edit-warring on the article, and also now edit-warring on the article's talk page to add or remove different instructions for editors new to the article. There are also allegations of sockpuppetry and now a few mild insults being thrown. The issue was raised at AN/I by Roger Pearse (requesting full protection for the article) and I have also provided a formal 3RR warning for Roger Pearse and Civilizededucation.

What would you like to change about this?
Need to find a way that the editors can agree on a way forward for their strongly differing views of what should be in the article.

How do you think we can help?
I suggest starting at the article talk page to get an idea of what the editors' positions are.

N.B. I may advise Roger Pearse that he should start an SPI regarding the other two editors, I have no idea what effect this will have on the mediation (or whether you'd wish to defer mediation until that's done or resolved some other way.)

Mediator notes
Opening statements being posted on this case's talk page. Lord Roem (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance of Mediation
Please indicate below whether you agree to participate in this mediation process:


 * Glad to. Roger Pearse (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm happy to take part in mediation. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to participate TomHennell (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I too would have been happy to participate, if Roger Pears could keep his inclination to indulge in extreme incivility, allegation mongering, inclination to misrepresent others, disinclination to AGF, etc.- in control. However, I do agree to participate.- Civilized education talk  02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Would like it to be noted that I have been contributing to WP for several years. And while I do agree with Civilizationeducation on several of the matters at issue, I am concerned that my identity and his are apparently being confused. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a simple dispute and while I am handling other mediations at the moment, I would be glad to mediate this if no one has an objection. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you -- you're very kind. So long as you wouldn't end up overloaded, hey? Roger Pearse (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok then. Let's have everyone post a <1000 word opening statement on the talk page of this case page. Please describe in your own words, with diffs if needed, 1) your summary of the conflict, 2) your side/position on the dispute and 3) what you think potential areas of compromise may be. Also, all parties are asked to watchlist this page so we can keep this process a'movin. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a brief note that Roger mentioned on my talk page that he wouldn't be online on Sunday, so we might be waiting a little. (He has made a broad statement of principles back on the article's talkpage, not sure if it is too long, or suitable for this or not). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My summary doesn't fit the format requested, so if people don't mind I will revise (and shorten!) it this evening. Roger Pearse (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In any case, I've just done my statement, and put it on what I take to be "the talk page of this case page".Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that's in the right place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, right place. That's where the bulk of the mediation will take place. I will wait a little while longer to begin the process, as I will still allow opening statements to be posted. Please remember to keep things on the side of brevity. Lord Roem (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I note the Mediation Talk Page has been edited so that the most recent contribution (by Roger) appears at the top, without a visible time and date. Beneath it is an earlier contribution, by myself, signed and dated, which has been given the title "Kalidasa reply", as if it had been written as a response to the Roger's later one! It appears to me that Roger is now attempting to exercise ownership over the Mediation Talk Page, just as he has been doing to the Mithraic mysteries page itself, and to the talk page attached to it. I am resisting the temptation to try to fix up the Mediation Talk Page myself... I will await advice from the Mediator before contributing further. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter. I know who wrote what and when. Renaming here is just semantics. Let's begin the process with a cool head. :-) Lord Roem (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I may post my views sometime later, please continue with the mediation process meanwhile. Kalidasa 777 has already explained most of the issues. However, please do not pay any attention to what Roger Pearse has said, or would say about me, he is misrepresenting me in numerous ways.- Civilized education talk  02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think an undue leeway is being granted to Roger Pearse by allowing him to place his response on top and to modify Kalidasa 777's comment. I hope you realize that other users may also be taking a look at the talk page and this talk page may come in handy at other possibly subsequent proceedings. As such, it is desirable that Roger Pearse's earlier comments be restored. I may provide a diff to them and reply to them anyway. And will resent it if his comments are not placed lower down, as they should be. What could be the problem with that? That is how it should have been in the first place.- Civilized education talk  03:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The mediation page is really only watched by you all and myself. Also, this proceeding cannot be used in subsequent forums (should this fail) as mediation is a privileged process. More details here. Lord Roem (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I have signed the talk page at the relevant place. Best Regards.- Civilized education talk  06:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly surprised at the complaint. I put my point at the top because I wrote a statement first, on the article talk page, and others responded to that here.  So I moved it across.  Then I saw the guidelines, so rewrote it.  Sorry if that upsets anyone - no intention to do anything wrong here.  By all means move it elsewhere if you feel that would be better.  As for being unsigned; I simply forgot!  But the history shows when I did what. Roger Pearse (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This post of yours is playing on my mind continuously. If you have no objection, please go ahead and move it. I think it would be better if you modify your comments yourself.- Civilized education talk  14:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. Whereabouts on the discussion page would you like it moved to? (I take it we are referring to the material on the mediation talk page?) Roger Pearse (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To facilitate discussion of one of the issues raised by Tom and Kalidasa: There is a Google Books preview of Walter Burkert's "Ancient mystery religions" here.   Roger Pearse (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think your initial statement should be between my and Tom Hennel's statements, going by the chronology of the placement of posts.- Civilized education talk  10:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Roger Pearse (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lord Roem, what do we do now? Roger Pearse (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)